Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 74. (Read 578565 times)

This is a great question.

I have recently found XCN and now mine (thanks gang for the AMD miner  ) because I think the "mini blockchain" is a great innovation (as well as tx malleability and withdrawal limits). I think of how to answer your question. If and only IF XCN's mini chain could be applicable to ALL coins in the teleporting network - that's value added. An a non-technical (non-coder) person, I don't know how this can be done. However, I do know jl777's vision is to integrate a "dark" network with all the best features of alts.

The four coins now part of the core are BTCD (teleport tech), BBR (onion routing for anon entry into teleport), VCN (fiat <--> coin conversion), and of course NXT for his other tech: privacybet, instadex, mgw, etc. Now, if the XCN tech of miniblockchain could be added to these ideal technologies/BTC improvements, then of course this would be huge for supernet.

I ramble and do not answer your question: smarter people than I need to explain this possibility. But I agree that XCN could improve greatly the supernet, whatever it is or will be...

Edit: is it too much to ask bitfreak! to ask james via PM about this possibility? Last I read, bitfreak! was against an integration idea...is this true?

Edit 2: maybe the supernet is seen by devs as "greed driven trend" as explained in the OP?

Edit 3: just found this post...


So maybe it's more about supernet currently being vaporware. Are you certain about this double spend issue?

[me]...continuing to read this tread[/me]

What's the point of putting cryptonite on supernet? How are other coins going to take advantage of cryptonite's mini blockchain? I'm of the opinion that supernet is infeasible vaporware or possibly an outright scam, but willing to listen if someone could explain how other coins could use cryptonite's defining feature - the mini blockchain.

True True.

fixed 

Supernet would be great for Cryptonite.

This coin is the true innovation.
Hope amd miners could share it.

Another 2% if mining at 1gh.

The performance is poor.
5.6 Mh/s for a 280x + the dev is taking 5 % fee of your mining.

I just hope that the AMD miners that join XCN, realize the massive potential for this little known coin, and don't just simply dump all their mined coins into the market. There's way too many dumpfarms AMD farms out there... On the other hand, I suppose that mass dumping will also increase the distribution spread, and time will tell if that is a wise decision or not. 

~ Myagui

Thank you so much for sharing.

Sorry, I've been running on Linux-only for many years now, no experience on recent windows versions...

pallas, do you know of any good linux support threads? I am trying to in install it on a dual boot and am having problems.

no linux support. bummer.

AMD GPU miner is available now:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/claymores-cryptonite-xcn-gpu-miner-v23-774601

Understood, thanks. Not worried about miners selecting transactions. Just trying to get cryptonite running on coinium without too much modification.

Coinbase transactions only allow a single output. Would be nice if there was a way to specify which address though. The supposed goal of stratum is to allow miners to modify txset which is going to be impossible without a copy of the trie.

After further investigation GetBlockTemplate does return a coinbase tx that pays to the default receive address (./cryptonited getaccountaddress ""). This is workable. It would still be nice if you could specify each coinbase txout address/amount but it is not a high priority issue.

I am interested in this too, as I did not got getblocktemplate to work too (at least not @ mainnet)

Bitfreak,

I'd like to create a stratum pool that uses the GetBlockTemplate RPC command. The problem is that when you create a coinbase tx you need to recalculate the AccountRootHash. This seems impractical to do on the pool server.

What I think it would need is a modified GetBlockTemplate that accepts coinbase txouts as arguments. This would enable it to return the correct precalculated AccountRootHash.

Am I understanding this correctly? If so would this be a change you'd consider?

I could potentially create the patch myself if you are interested.

can someone compile me the new webwallet for win 64bit


everyone remember to tweet @BittrexExchange about adding #XCN